It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Jury: Gun shop that sold weapon used to shoot, wound Milwaukee cops must pay nearly $6 million

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 12:23 PM
a reply to: alienjuggalo

This is a judicial abomination that will be overturned on appeal. There is no way a gun dealer can control their wares once it leaves the store, and they don't have to.

If this stands, then fatties will sue WalMart for selling the donuts to them because it's Walmart's fault, not their own fault for shoving donut after donut into their gobs.

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 12:25 PM

originally posted by: Krakatoa
I think I remember seeing this reported on the MSM, and them showing a section of the application. In the image they showed, there was a question whether the firearm was for your personal use, with a pair of [ YES ] [NO ] checkboxes. In this case, the [ NO ] box was checked. If this is true, as I saw it, and was the actual application, then the shop is responsible for selling it to someone with full knowledge it was not intended for their use. This might be the evidence needed to push this through appeal.

Does anyone here know if the image of the application is available online (from a verified source) so we can get a look at it as well?

If this is true, then the BATF should be held culpable, since they approved the straw purchase.

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 12:33 PM
a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

I agree, it will be appealed and the store exonerated, but can the person that bought the weapon and gave it to the criminal be exonerated?

Why the state didn't sue the person that bought the gun, I guess its better to sue who have the most money to pay.

Sounds like double standards and over reach.

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 09:26 PM
a reply to: Shamrock6

Please stay on topic. No thread drift needed.

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 09:48 PM

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Krakatoa

I too am a strong supporter of RTKBA, but I also agree. Not only does there appear to be a 'pattern of behavior' with this shop, but the 4473 (form) has numerous strikeouts and corrections. I've always thought any strikeouts on a 4473 voided the form, and (minimally) another one needed to be filled out or the sale denied.

Further, in my humble opinion, it is shops such as these which give guns and gun owners a bad name. The market is what the market is, and demand will exist. The void will be filled by another shop, but hopefully one which follows the laws.

Agreed. And, it also provides a precedent to be stretched and twisted to allow a more liberal interpretation in the future. But, IMO (and it seems the jury as well) they broke the law. In doing so, they were also liable and found complacent in the shootings. I can only hope it stops here.....and only here.

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 10:21 PM

Authorities have said more than 500 firearms recovered from crime scenes had been traced back to Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors, making it the "No. 1 crime gun dealer in America," according to a 2005 charging document from an unrelated case.

Uh... That seems rather telling. Then again I have no idea how common it is for a specific shop to have a gun traced back to them, and that doesn't mean those were sold illegally.

Collins, the man who purchased the gun, got a two-year sentence after pleading guilty to making a straw purchase for an underage buyer.

This is very troublesome. You only get 2 years for buying someone that shouldn't be allowed to have a certain gun the weapon used in shooting 2 cops? That's ridiculous.

I would need more details. WHY was it determined the employee should have recognized this as a straw purchase?

The lawsuit said the shop ignored several warning signs that the gun used to shoot the officers was being sold to a so-called straw buyer who was illegally purchasing the weapon for someone else.

K, what were those warning signs?

If you're a fan of the 2nd, you should be smart enough to realize that if this business was being shady and had no problem completing straw purchases they are hurting your rights to gun ownership. Some of the comments I've seen about this are just retarded unless people have way better information than me (I wouldn't be surprised) about why exactly it was found there was negligence.

Failing to card someone that doesn't appear to be 40 or 50 or 60 (I can't remember what age) for alcohol is a crime here. There are places that will sell to someone with a blatantly fake ID (or just not card). Should they not get in trouble because the person they sold to might have Benjamin Button syndrome? If it's a GOOD fake ID and the person doesn't look like they're 12, yeah, I get that it's unfair to punish the business. The guy that used to sell my buddy alcohol with an ID printed off a home computer (BACK IN THE DAY) and laminated at some office supply store knew full well what he was doing.

So in this situation let's get all the facts before we spout off a bunch of dumbass stuff about our rights and comparing it to freaking bartenders. Serving someone too much alcohol is nowhere near as nefarious as knowingly selling someone a gun that they are going to then give to someone else who legally can't own one. As deadly? Probably, but that's like saying the guy that sells an old person a ladder is complicit. A gun is a different kind of complicit. WTF do you think the person is going to use it for if they can't but it legally? It's not like buying a kid a pack of smokes.

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 10:24 PM
a reply to: Domo1

Perhaps you should read my post on the previous page, here.

My post with details and news links on why the shop should have known

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 10:43 PM

originally posted by: ispyed
a reply to: alienjuggalo


They have a track record. Good on the jury. Your country needs gun control. You cant all be John Waynes or Billy the Kids.

Seeing as you have no personal first hand experience with firearms, ownership or the laws of this country, maybe you should...butt out!! Putting a sock in it would be good.

Enough with these uneducated "opinions" with no basis in fact! Your entire knowledge of this situation, firearms ownership and social situations in general here in the US is based on something you read in the media. Therefore your opinion means ZERO! Please, prove me wrong.

I support the judgement (for the most part), but I don't support these types of 'piling on, US bashing, opinions' from people who have an agenda, but absolutely zero first hand knowledge.

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 10:49 PM

originally posted by: alienjuggalo

I mean if you are going to be responsible for what someone does with a gun they buy legally from you , who the hell is going to want to sell guns to anyone?


posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 11:52 PM

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
If the store really was the worst store in America why the %%%% was it still open? So is the city now responsible because they knew or should have known this store was selling guns illegaly and didnt shut them down?

slippery slope..

There has to be a worst store that's in business. If they were shut down there would be a new worst, if that store gets shut down then there's another worst. All the way up the chain until the best store in the country is also the worst store in the country and they too would be shut down.

posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 12:08 AM
After catching up on this thread I can see why this shop was charged.

They seem to be rather negligent with who they sell to.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in